U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed

[Rogifan]

This is so stupid. iOS is not a monopoly. No one had to use an iOS device. If you want Spotify without paying the Apple commission then subscribe over the web. And anyone who says it’s my hardware I can do what in want with it: No. You bought a license to use software that can only be run on a specific piece of hardware. Again not something you’re forced to do. There are other options.

Good thing is the Supreme Court will put an end to this nonsense.

 

[[AUT] Thomas]

Most people here don't understand what monopoly actually means.
You don't need to be the only player, it's enough to have sufficient market share. Otherwise google wouldn't have been subject to regulation in the past. Everyone can choose a different search engine if they want to. However, we are not only talking about users, but also the other side. In case of google: the websites. If your business isn't found using google, what happens? Loss of revenue.

This is not about iPhone users, but developers!
If that's not clear enough: as a dev you are not free to choose the plattform. If you don't have an App on the Play Store and the App-Store your app revenues will be ZERO.
Although, for Android you can upload the APK to your website and provide the download link upon payment if google decides to kick you out.
How do you that for iPhones? XCode? Only with open source. Now tell me again how Apple does not qualify as monopolist.

The App-Store is the only way devs can reach customers. However, Apple is exercising a policy on the App Store where it won't publish Apps of similar behaviour or for whatever other arbitrary reason (see Steam). In it's current state the App-Store is not a capitalistic market place, but Apples app-selection. Also, when you re-install you phone, your purchased App my no longer be available as Apple removed it from the App-Store.

As more plattforms implement this store concept it requires a legal framework. Especially when it comes to change of Terms & Conditions. New T&C can't be forced upon customers that have made a purchase without the possiblity of a refund (i.e. 100% in the first year, 50% in the 2nd and 25% in the 3rd year). Currently, this "here, have our new T&Cs! If you don't like them you may quit and lose all your paid apps." is a bad joke.
Also a store provider must not delete any purchased app without due notice to make a local backup.
A store provider must publish all apps if they fullfill plattform requirements & pass QC and security checks.

 

[yakapo]

Somehow that argument didn't work in favor of Microsoft..if you didn't like internet explorer, you didn't have to buy a Windows desktop.

I’m glad Microsoft lost that lawsuit. Imagine if Microsoft required you to exclusively buy apps from their store.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

The market is iOS devices.

You can replace the stereo in the car.

Nope. The market is smart phones. ONE provider is Apple.

And good luck replacing the infotainment system in any modern vehicle. Sure, you can do it but you'll lose a lot of core vehicle functionality.

 

[cube]

This is so stupid. iOS is not a monopoly. No one had to use an iOS device. If you want Spotify without paying the Apple commission then subscribe over the web. And anyone who says it’s my hardware I can do what in want with it: No. You bought a license to use software that can only be run on a specific piece of hardware. Again not something you’re forced to do. There are other options.

Yes, Apple could be required to open the hardware so that you can install Sailfish, which you can get for Xperia, for example.
[doublepost=1529337837][/doublepost]

Nope. The market is smart phones. ONE provider is Apple.

The market to which the vertical monopoly applies is iOS.

 

[til1p]

It is a vertical monopoly.

How so?

 

[spazzcat]

Then maybe Amazon would be subsidizing their appstore and could be sued.
[doublepost=1529336522][/doublepost]
Yes, and that is not the issue at hand.

It is 100% the issue, the iPhone comes with the App Store, you know this before you buy the phone.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

This is no different than the fact you're limited to shopping at the onboard stores when you take a cruise.

If that cruise lasted years and you weren't allowed to take the things you bought on the ship off of it and onto a competing cruise.

 

[cube]

How so?

It applies to a family of products.

 

[Baymowe335]

And what specifically does Gillette do that prevents other companies from making replacement blades that fit correctly?

I don't know...proprietary connections like on tons of products, such as tools, car parts, etc. It happens all the time.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Most people here don't understand what monopoly actually means.
You don't need to be the only player, it's enough to have sufficient market share. Otherwise google wouldn't have been subject to regulation in the past. Everyone can choose a different search engine if they want to. However, we are not only talking about users, but also the other side. In case of google: the websites. If your business isn't found using google, what happens? Loss of revenue.

This is not about iPhone users, but developers!
If that's not clear enough: as a dev you are not free to choose the plattform. If you don't have an App on the Play Store and the App-Store your app revenues will be ZERO.
Although, for Android you can upload the APK to your website and provide the download link upon payment if google decides to kick you out.
How do you that for iPhones? XCode? Only with open source. Now tell me again how Apple does not qualify as monopolist.

The App-Store is the only way devs can reach customers. However, Apple is exercising a policy on the App Store where it won't publish Apps of similar behaviour or for whatever other arbitrary reason (see Steam). In it's current state the App-Store is not a capitalistic market place, but Apples app-selection. Also, when you re-install you phone, your purchased App my no longer be available as Apple removed it from the App-Store.

As more plattforms implement this store concept it requires a legal framework. Especially when it comes to change of Terms & Conditions. New T&C can't be forced upon customers that have made a purchase without the possiblity of a refund (i.e. 100% in the first year, 50% in the 2nd and 25% in the 3rd year). Currently, this "here, have our new T&Cs! If you don't like them you may quit and lose all your paid apps." is a bad joke.
Also a store provider must not delete any purchased app without due notice to make a local backup.
A store provider must publish all apps if they fullfill plattform requirements & pass QC and security checks.

While accurate, I think there's a disconnect here.

1. The absence of alternate app stores
2. Apple's perceived / potential 'strangle hold' on what goes into the App Store

These are two totally separate issues. The developers are suing for #1, but IMO Apple has an absolute right to act as a point of control... for a lot of reasons. Security is a big one. #2, however, is the bigger issue and (again, IMO) should be the one that the suit addresses.

There are a lot of capabilities that probably should and could be provided by 3rd party developers... but Apple won't allow them. There are even a lot of 'adult' apps - no... I'm not referring to porn - that probably could be available but because Apple insists on a PG rating they'll never make it.

 

[Elijen]

If someone doesn't like being tied down to the App Store then simply don't buy an iPhone. It's common sense.

No, but those people rather ruin iOS for everyone else because if they can't have what they want nobody else can!

 

[strategicthinke]

This is no different than the fact you're limited to shopping at the onboard stores when you take a cruise.

Absolutely wrong. It’s more like you buy a cruise ship and the manufacturer only allows you to sell and buy certain things in the on-board stores.

Again, I’m not completely against Apple on this, the this comparison does not stand true.

 

[cube]

It is 100% the issue, the iPhone comes with the App Store, you know this before you buy the phone.

iOS and Android prevent other operating systems to flourish.

 

[yakapo]

MS had a monopoly in the PC market, Apple and Linux were not big enough.

So now that the market has changed, can MS exclusively sell apps from its own store and disallow third party apps?

 

[rafark]

This is complete nonsense. Their device, their rules. The fact Apple allows third parties to sell is a privilege, not a right.

 

[maikerukun]

I'm super confused on this...

Isn't iPhone Apple's? So it's their own product right? How are people able to sue them for running their own product however they see fit? Can't customers just go buy a different product?

I don't get how anybody can sue Apple over this. They have a monopoly on their own product, of course, because it's their product. Duh, right? I'm confused...

 

[yakapo]

This is complete nonsense. Their device, their rules.

So why did google get fined billions for choosing to put its ads on the top of search results?

 

[cube]

So now that the market has changed, can MS exclusively sell apps from its own store and disallow third party apps?

This happens in Windows 10 S, but you can pay to upgrade.

 

[jimothyGator]

You don't need to have a monopoly, you just need to abuse the market to be in the wrong.

It was fine to sue Microsoft and Intel. But too little, too late.

Too little, too late, and too unnecessary. IE lost marketshare because better choices (Safari, Chrome, and FireFox) came along. Before that, IE gained marketshare because it was free and convenient since it came with Windows (oh, the horror, thank god the DOJ rescued customers from this scourge!), but also because Netscape, the previous market leader, became bloated and crappy. Consumer groups didn't bring the case again Microsoft; Netscape and Sun did, because Netscape and Sun were putting out crappy, over priced products.

Complacency, hubris, and stagnation did in Netscape and Sun. Internet Explorer lost marketshare for the same three reasons. The DOJ case accomplished nothing except lining lawyers' pockets.

 

[groadyho]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember MS and Google got nailed. It is Apple's turn

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Yes, Apple could be required to open the hardware so that you can install Sailfish, which you can get for Xperia, for example.
[doublepost=1529337837][/doublepost]
The market to which the vertical monopoly applies is iOS.

OK... we seem to be looking at this differently and I'm happy to learn something.

How about a different scenario. Consider 3 electric companies. #1 is 100% nuclear. #2 is 100% coal. #3 is a combination of wind and solar, with coal as a supporting approach. Now assume that I really like doing business with #1 but want to get my energy from wind and solar. Does that mean that #1 is a vertical monopoly and should be forced to provide electricity from alternate sources?

 

[rafark]

So why did google get fined billions for choosing to put its ads on the top of search results?

Another nonsense. Their product is not public property. Imagine you create your own website. You sell your own products on it and you also allow third parties to advertise on your property. You're giving them a privilege, and they should abide by your rules. If you want to put your ads in a better position on your website, you should have full right to do so.

 

[I7guy]

Or maybe Apple will reduce their fee to 5%.

Or maybe not. If deemed a monopoly and Apple has to open the App Store and the worst fears are realized maybe app developers will realize 30% is a good thing for all of the protections.

 

[usarioclave]

Are there damages? Is there abuse of monopoly power? Is there anti-competitive behavior?

The brick case makes no sense in the context of this case.

A monopoly in and of itself is not illegal.

 

[rafark]

So now that the market has changed, can MS exclusively sell apps from its own store and disallow third party apps?

They should if they wanted to.